Tpo41Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing

Both the listening and writing discuss the necessity of stricter regulations for handing and storing coal ash. They contradict each other from the following perspectives.

Firstly, the lecturer challenges the idea purposed by the writer that there exist the related regulations for environmental protection already. Instead, she contends that the existing regulations are not sufficient. The requirement only requires to use liner in new pond and landfill but lack of restricting the use in old pond and land leading to damage of underground water from disposal sites when those chemical being leak in the ground.

Secondly, the professor refutes the idea advocated by the author that customers may stop using those recycled coal ash products concerning its safety. Nevertheless, she posits that this is unlikely to happen as there is a similar case before. Mercury has been strictly regulated to be recycled for a long time. It is recycled safely so that consumers are not concerned at all.

Thirdly, the lecture casts doubt on the thought illustrated by the passage that increasing costs will lead to an increase in electricity prices resulting in public dissatisfaction By contrast, it indicates that the benefit is worth the extra expense. The implementation of the new machine may cost 50 million. However, the whole price increase may be only 1%, which will not cause any dissatisfaction because of the cleaner environments it brings.

In conclusion, the talk rebuts the passage from three distinct aspects regarding the necessity of putting forward the new rules about coal ash.

Average: 7 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Number of Paragraphs: 5 4
better to have 4 paragraphs:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 24 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 13 12
No. of Words: 252 250
No. of Characters: 1307 1200
No. of Different Words: 166 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.984 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.187 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.884 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 95 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.385 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.904 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.692 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.603 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 4